GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    Looks like Markham is finally officially making its move to get in on the action - could make for some interesting negotiations with MLSE down the line. This is from TSN:


    The movement to build a 19,000-seat arena in north of Toronto will be taking a big step forward.

    The City of Markham has announced that there will be a special council session next Thursday discuss an arena proposal from businessman Graeme Roustan.

    The planned arena would be built on a tract of land just north of the Highway 407 in Markham.

    As reported by TSN Hockey Insider Bob McKenzie last November, Roustan - the chairman of the hockey equipment company, Bauer, who also moonlights as an arena builder and Toronto-area land developer Rudy Bratty (ranked in 2010 by Canadian Business Magazine as the 62nd richest man in Canada with a net worth of $940 million), have been working together in the massive real estate venture regardless of the NHL interest, or lack thereof, in southern Ontario.

    The arena would also be part of a much larger sports and entertainment complex, known as the Markham Sports, Entertainment and Cultural Centre, a $3 billion, 900-plus acre high-density residential, commercial and retail development that is part of the official plan of the town.

    The expectation is the arena will be economically viable even without a major sports tenant, and that concert and show promoter Live Nation and arena management firm Global Spectrum are said to have some interest as well.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    Brings the cities with new rink  plans to three - Qubec, Markham and Seattle.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49thparallel. Show 49thparallel's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    Red, this would be just up the street from me. Would be nice to be home in 15 minutes after a Bruins game instead of the hour it currently takes me to the ACC. But I'm sure the Burkie crowd would never allow it...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation:
    [QUOTE]Red, this would be just up the street from me. Would be nice to be home in 15 minutes after a Bruins game instead of the hour it currently takes me to the ACC. But I'm sure the Burkie crowd would never allow it...
    Posted by 49thparallel[/QUOTE]

    Well Markham is well within the Leafs exclusivity zone, so any expansion or relocation would have to be negotiated with MLSE. Because of the strength of the market, I could see it happening, but only with HUGE fees. Nice thing about Markham though, is it's unlikely to pull attendance away from Buffalo, which has long been an NHL concern about increasing its presence in Southern Ontario.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    Could be interesting but Gary Bettman was a guest on Hockey Central just before the playoffs started and said expansion is not even on the radar right now and also stated they will do everything they can to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix & have no interest in relocating anymore teams. It sounded as if he was saying that Quebec, Seattle, Kansas City or anybody else should not hold their breath for an NHL franchise.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation:
    [QUOTE]Could be interesting but Gary Bettman was a guest on Hockey Central just before the playoffs started and said expansion is not even on the radar right now and also stated they will do everything they can to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix & have no interest in relocating anymore teams. It sounded as if he was saying that Quebec, Seattle, Kansas City or anybody else should not hold their breath for an NHL franchise.
    Posted by jpBsSoxFan[/QUOTE]

    He said pretty much the exact same thing last May when Brunt broke the story that the Thrashers were moving to Winnipeg. Two weeks later he's standing next to Mark Chipman inside the MTS Centre officially announcing the move. I've been following the chaos that is relocation/expansion for years now, ever since Winnipeg's return became a possibility after the lockout.

    If there's one thing I've learned in those years it's to not believe a single word Daly and Bettman say on this issue.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation : He said pretty much the exact same thing last May when Brunt broke the story that the Thrashers were moving to Winnipeg. Two weeks later he's standing next to Mark Chipman inside the MTS Centre officially announcing the move. I've been following the chaos that is relocation/expansion for years now, ever since Winnipeg's return became a possibility after the lockout. If there's one thing I've learned it's to not believe a word Daly and Bettman say on this issue.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]
    Agreed Red. This is certainly an area in which money talks.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    A scenario that is not out of the question is to simply fold the Coyotes.  I am sure that the league does not want to be running them any longer and if no suitable owners come forward, they can fold the team.  This would provide time for the Quebec's, this Toronto group, Hartford, etc... to build and then the NHL could award an expansion franchise.  I am just hoping that KC, Seattle, Las Vegas, or any other city of that ilk don't get the Coyotes.  Another mess just waiting to happen.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation:
    [QUOTE]A scenario that is not out of the question is to simply fold the Coyotes.  I am sure that the league does not want to be running them any longer and if no suitable owners come forward, they can fold the team.  This would provide time for the Quebec's, this Toronto group, Hartford, etc... to build and then the NHL could award an expansion franchise.  I am just hoping that KC, Seattle, Las Vegas, or any other city of that ilk don't get the Coyotes.  Another mess just waiting to happen.
    Posted by MeanE[/QUOTE]

    The NHLPA would fight that tooth and nail, especially going into a CBA year. That would cost them 1/30th of their membership, but more importantly it would reduce each team's cap. While they lost $24.4 million last year, they still brought in revenues of over $63 million, and the cap is based on league revenues, not profit. The players receive 57 per cent of that $63 million, or $35.91 million.

    So the NHLPA would lose out on the $55 million the Coyotes currently pay to players, as well as an additional $35.91 million that goes towards the cap, or just slightly more than $1 million per team. I don't think contracting the Coyotes until Seattle (which I think would be a very successful NHL market), toronto, Quebec or maybe Milwaukee are ready for a team is a bad idea, I just don't think the NHLPA would ever go for it.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation : The NHLPA would fight that tooth and nail, especially going into a CBA year. That would cost them 1/30th of their membership, but more importantly it would reduce each team's cap. While they lost $24.4 million last year, they still brought in revenues of over $63 million, and the cap is based on league revenues, not profit. The players receive 57 per cent of that $63 million, or $35.91 million. So the NHLPA would lose out on the $55 million the Coyotes currently pay to players, as well as an additional $35.91 million that goes towards the cap, or just slightly more than $1 million per team. I don't think contracting the Coyotes until Seattle (which I think would be a very successful NHL market), toronto, Quebec or maybe Milwaukee are ready for a team is a bad idea, I just don't think the NHLPA would ever go for it.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    For these very reasons are why I believe it will be on the table!  Donald Fehr was supposed to start negotiations after the all-star break, now it is after the season ends.  Unfortunately, I see this dee bag causing a work stoppage and the NHl will use PHX as a chip in what looks like will be an ugly game AGAIN!  Just curious as to what makes you think that Seattle will be a sucessful NHL market?


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation : For these very reasons are why I believe it will be on the table!  Donald Fehr was supposed to start negotiations after the all-star break, now it is after the season ends.  Unfortunately, I see this dee bag causing a work stoppage and the NHl will use PHX as a chip in what looks like will be an ugly game AGAIN!  Just curious as to what makes you think that Seattle will be a sucessful NHL market?
    Posted by MeanE[/QUOTE]

    There's a lot of factors that make Seattle a prime target for the NHL, and a potentially sucessful franchise financially.

    The propsed site for the rink is in a perfect and prim location, next to major roadways, easy access across the city, public transit and both the football and baseball stadiums.

    Seattle is and has been for a very long time, a strong hockey town. Washington State supports four very successful Major Junior hockey clubs, more than any other state. They have more public rinks than any other American city on the west coast and have a strong and successful minor hockey program. And they have a history, having won a Cup previously. They're a hockey town.

    The potential owner of the club is Don Levin. Levin owns and operates the Chicago wolves of the AHL, the most financially successful team in that league (now that the Moose are gone). He's a hockey guy who knows how to properly run a team and make a buck at it.

    The proximity to Vancouver and the Canadian border is a huge plus. There's an automatic geographical rivalry in place. They will also be able to tap into the Canadian market, with travel to the proposed arena potentially being easier for fans in white Rock, Langley and Abottsford to do, then travelling to Dowtown Vancouver to catch a game (all depnds on what the border crossing times are).

    It's the 14th largest media market in the US, and the Pacific Northwest has a fairly robust and growing economy when compared to other regions in North America, so the opportunities for media and corporate support are significant. Also seattle has a high median income, so there is money there to be spent on season tickets.

    They have an existing fanbase, quality ownership with hockey experience, a building proposal that would be state of the art and primely located, geographical significance for the league, and the economic wherewithal to be successful. The only reason the NHL wasn't there decades agowas the Key Arena, and that problem looks to be solved.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from seobrien. Show seobrien's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    "Could be interesting but Gary Bettman was a guest on Hockey Central just before the playoffs started and said expansion is not even on the radar right now and also stated they will do everything they can to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix"

    He'll do and say anything to justify his pipe-dream of making the NHL palpable and profitable to southern markets.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation : There's a lot of factors that make Seattle a prime target for the NHL, and a potentially sucessful franchise financially. The propsed site for the rink is in a perfect and prim location, next to major roadways, easy access across the city, public transit and both the football and baseball stadiums. Seattle is and has been for a very long time, a strong hockey town. Washington State supports four very successful Major Junior hockey clubs, more than any other state. They have more public rinks than any other American city on the west coast and have a strong and successful minor hockey program. And they have a history, having won a Cup previously. They're a hockey town. The potential owner of the club is Don Levin. Levin owns and operates the Chicago wolves of the AHL, the most financially successful team in that league (now that the Moose are gone). He's a hockey guy who knows how to properly run a team and make a buck at it. The proximity to Vancouver and the Canadian border is a huge plus. There's an automatic geographical rivalry in place. They will also be able to tap into the Canadian market, with travel to the proposed arena potentially being easier for fans in white Rock, Langley and Abottsford to do, then travelling to Dowtown Vancouver to catch a game (all depnds on what the border crossing times are). It's the 14th largest media market in the US, and the Pacific Northwest has a fairly robust and growing economy when compared to other regions in North America, so the opportunities for media and corporate support are significant. Also seattle has a high median income, so there is money there to be spent on season tickets. They have an existing fanbase, quality ownership with hockey experience, a building proposal that would be state of the art and primely located, geographical significance for the league, and the economic wherewithal to be successful. The only reason the NHL wasn't there decades agowas the Key Arena, and that problem looks to be solved.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    You make some good arguments.  However, I don't necessarily think that Junior hockey support translates to NHL support.  The costs are astronomically different.  The Mariners were 23rd out of 30 in attendance last year.  Can the city/state support MLB, NFL, MLS, Juniors, the NHL and not to mention the Huskies, Even with the help of fans on the other side of the border?  I simply don't think so.  I have met Don many times and there is no question he is a good hockey guy and a great businessmen, but I would rather see a team in Quebec, Ontario, and even Hartford before any of the other cities mentioned, including Seattle.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation : You make some good arguments.  However, I don't necessarily think that Junior hockey support translates to NHL support.  The costs are astronomically different.  The Mariners were 23rd out of 30 in attendance last year.  Can the city/state support MLB, NFL, MLS, Juniors, the NHL and not to mention the Huskies, Even with the help of fans on the other side of the border?  I simply don't think so.  I have met Don many times and there is no question he is a good hockey guy and a great businessmen, but I would rather see a team in Quebec, Ontario, and even Hartford before any of the other cities mentioned, including Seattle.
    Posted by MeanE[/QUOTE]

    You may be right MeanE, and the split in between all those sports teams could hurt. That's a possibility. I do have some faith that Levin has been doing his due dilligence though to make sure that's not the case. As you said he's a great businessman, and he has a fairly close relationship with Mark chipman, so I'm sure he's picked up the phne a few times to get advice.

    I also think that Quebec is likely the best short term solution. But with ontario, they have to get past the Leafs and Sabres, something they have not been able to do after 30 years of trying. The new location in Markham may be a step in solving that.
    And Hartford is a non-starter. They don't have a building and their economy has been absolutely hammered by the recession. It'd be nice to have the Whale back but I can't see it happening in the near future with the infrastructure and economic realities currently in place.
    If the Bucks and the Admirals can finally get a replcement for the Bradley in place, I'd say the three best options, in order, would be Quebec, Seattle, and Milwaukee. Ontario would be successful, but there's a ot of red tape that would need to be cut.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    The intriguing part of the Markham plan is the fact that it would introduce real competition into the GTA market.  The Leafs have been cruising along, without any  REAL incentive (i.e. monetary) to improve.  Yes, I know, they keep saying that they want to make the playoffs, but when their fans keep coming and spending merch money regardless of the team's performance, how much actual pressure is there?

    By providing a genuine alternative, the Markham team puts that much more pressure on the Leafs to put a competitive team on the ice.  And wouldn't it be embarrassing if the new team made it to the playoffs before the Leafs' next trip to the second season?

    That alone may be enough for MLSE to fight the application tooth & nail.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from asmaha. Show asmaha's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    Question for the group: When you really delve into the issue, explain to me how adding a team to No. Ontario does anything but *help* the Leafs? Toronto fans aren't going to magically stop being Toronto fans, and the ACC will still sell every game. Adding a team to the area will only solidify this fan entrenchment by giving another Canadian entity to provide interesting matchups and rivalries.

    The bigger issue is for a potential owner of a new team up there. Is there enough interest/demand from fans that don't already have an allegiance?

    (Fingers crossed for Seattle, by the way. As Red points out, the stars are aligning for that market).
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from asmaha. Show asmaha's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    I think another interesting take on this is how different pro leagues handle 2-team markets. Yankees-Mets, Jets-Giants, Cubs-White Sox, Nats-Orioles, Dodgers-Angels, A's-Giants, etc. Lots of situations where teams are separated into two leagues instead of geography.

    Meanwhile, the NHL continues to focus on geography as the means for creating divisions. What's to say there couldn't be two conferences that are not based on geography? The last realignment proposal (that eventually failed) had aims to alleviate travel and schedule disparities, which a balanced non-geo league would do.

    It'll never happen because it could potentially kill some excellent long-standing rivalries, but could be interesting and help answer this questions about teams from similar geographical markets. Just for giggles, do this and then play a balanced schedule...

    Conference 1:
    Anaheim
    Boston
    Chicago
    Colorado
    Dallas
    Detroit
    Minnesota
    Montreal
    NY Rangers
    Ottawa
    St. Louis
    Tampa Bay
    Toronto
    Vancouver
    Washington


    Conference 2:
    Buffalo
    Calgary
    Carolina
    Columbus
    Edmonton
    Florida
    Los Angeles
    Nashville
    New Jersey
    NY Islanders
    Philadelphia
    Phoenix
    Pittsburgh
    San Jose
    Winnipeg
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation:
    [QUOTE]Question for the group: When you really delve into the issue, explain to me how adding a team to No. Ontario does anything but *help* the Leafs? Toronto fans aren't going to magically stop being Toronto fans, and the ACC will still sell every game. Adding a team to the area will only solidify this fan entrenchment by giving another Canadian entity to provide interesting matchups and rivalries. The bigger issue is for a potential owner of a new team up there. Is there enough interest/demand from fans that don't already have an allegiance? (Fingers crossed for Seattle, by the way. As Red points out, the stars are aligning for that market).
    Posted by asmaha[/QUOTE]

    I don't think you'd have much trouble getting a large segment of fans to switch allegiances if you approach it right, and I think that's where the Leafs' concern lies.
    One of the problems the Leafs' have is who their season ticket base is - it's predominantly corporate. There's not a lot of blue collar middle class fans in those seats all year long. If a new team used a system like the Jets did for season ticket sales, you'd have a far more working class fan base in those seats. That would be their market. What would happen to the Leafs if there's a team regularly making the playoffs, with ticket prices $30 lower than the Leafs?

     A lot of Leafs fans would never switch,  so it wouldn't hurt the Leafs much outside of possible media and merch. revenues. But enough fans would so that a new team would be viable. People may mock the Clippers, but they've showed that you can move into a market serviced by an existing team and still create a fanbase for yourself - they're 7th in the NBA in average attendance. The Lakers are 8th.

    As for you realignmednt idea, people forget that Bettman was an NBA guy, and when he came in it was to implement a similar model to the NBA sturturally and financially to that league. As long as he's in it will remain a geographical model.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    Great article from Stephen Brunt today on the catastrophe that is the Coyotes and the City of Glendale.


    It is an unremarkable place in nearly every respect, one more iteration of bland suburban sprawl in Arizona's populous Valley of the Sun. Driving west from downtown Phoenix, in the opposite direction from the more fashionable, prosperous suburbs on that city's eastern fringe, you hardly notice it before hitting the vast, empty expanses of the Sonoran Desert.

    But now Glendale, Ariz., has a place in history -- or at least in economics textbooks -- as the subject of a perfect cautionary tale. It is the town that went all-in on professional sports and lost. Big.

    At press time, the city's top bureaucrat was still speaking confidently about a buyer appearing for the Phoenix Coyotes, currently a ward of the National Hockey League, and for the Jobing.com Arena where the team plays, who would presumably keep the franchise where it is, and the Glendale council had been briefed behind closed doors about recent developments. Gary Bettman also seemed particularly smug when asked about the situation on the first night of the playoffs (though smug is nearly always his default attitude).

    Could happen, but of course we've heard that one before—and every time, the lack of an actual owner, or an actual owner with actual money, or a deal that could get past the watchdog Goldwater Institute without inspiring a lawsuit, somehow got in the way.

    But owner or no owner, relocation or not, it doesn't really matter now. Glendale has already passed the point of no return. A city with a population of approximately a quarter of a million people is carrying a debt in excess of a billion dollars, not including a projected $30-million budget shortfall this year, and is currently contemplating which services its citizenry will be forced to do without in order to pay the bills.

    That sad state of affairs relates directly to the magical thinking that directed massive public investment into the team, into the arena, into the shopping centre that was constructed around it, an elaborate pyramid scheme that fell apart for the same reason all pyramid schemes fall apart: There aren't actually enough people willing to buy the core product.

    Glendale's civic guardians, led by the remarkable Elaine Scruggs (take heart Torontonians, it turns out you didn't really elect the worst, most embarrassing mayor in North America), weren't simply buying into the fastest game on ice. They were buying into the big lie about how professional sports can be an economic engine; about how they create jobs, create wealth, put your town on the map, bring life to moribund neighbourhoods, etc., etc.

    There are volumes of academic literature that definitively disprove all of that. Professional sports teams are in fact relatively small businesses that, if anything, leech discretionary spending from other sectors of the economy. They create a modest number of seasonal, low paying jobs, and a very small number of extraordinarily high paying ones -- for the athletes, who inevitably leave town the minute the last game is over.

    At best, a new arena can redirect commercial activity from one part of a city to another, but the truth is, everything considered, you'd be way better off spending public money on a monorail (if only Mayor Scruggs had met Lyle Lanley first…) than on housing and subsidizing a professional sports franchise.

    And as to more ephemeral benefits, consider this: As a result of its other big investment in sport -- the University of Phoenix Stadium -- Glendale has played host to one of the planet's single biggest one-off sporting events, the Super Bowl, and will do so again in 2015. Did you even notice? Did it make you think differently about the place?

    Now, if the Coyotes go (the NHL having pocketed $50 million in direct operating subsidies over the past two seasons), Glendale will be left with an empty arena and a mountain of debt, a vast smoking crater.

    If they stay, it can only be through a sweetheart deal for the potential buyer that makes sure the NHL gets back the $170 million it paid to buy the franchise out of bankruptcy, but that wouldn't do anything to make the city whole. Though the Goldwater folks will be waiting to intervene, it's hard to imagine anyone buying the team for that much money without the benefit of some kind of public subsidy, or without being handed the arena as well for a song, or without some kind of escape clause so that, unlike the Coyotes' last owner, Jerry Moyes, they can get while the getting is good.

    The mayor, who isn't running for re-election; the Glendale city manager, who is heading for early retirement; and the boneheads on the local council have left that legacy for their children, and grandchildren, and perhaps their great-grandchildren -- all to prop up a game about which most people there simply don't care.

    But don't lie awake fretting about the good citizens of Glendale. They'll be just fine. Because now, they're planning on opening a casino.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    Read that one also Red. Brunt wasn't pulling any punches with that one. Seems like he fully expects the Coyotes to be moving on, at least that was my impression. I admit I have not been paying too much attention to them in the playoffs and wonder if the attendance has been good for thm so far. If a team can't sell out in the post-season then something is wrong (NJ being the exception here, they almost never sell out unless they are in the finals).
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation:
    [QUOTE]Read that one also Red. Brunt wasn't pulling any punches with that one. Seems like he fully expects the Coyotes to be moving on, at least that was my impression. I admit I have not been paying too much attention to them in the playoffs and wonder if the attendance has been good for thm so far. If a team can't sell out in the post-season then something is wrong (NJ being the exception here, they almost never sell out unless they are in the finals).
    Posted by jmwalters[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, and when it's come to relocation, he's been the most accurate reporter on this issue. The only question I think is where, which is what fascinates me. In a way it would bug me if they end up in Seattle, which would mean they could stay in the Pacific Division while the Jets are still playing in the SE.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    For additional reading, "Field of Schemes", by Neil deMause and Joanna Cagan is very informative.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation : Yeah, and when it's come to relocation, he's been the most accurate reporter on this issue. The only question I think is where, which is what fascinates me. In a way it would bug me if they end up in Seattle, which would mean they could stay in the Pacific Division while the Jets are still playing in the SE.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    That would be pretty crappy for the Jets for sure. I don't think Seattle is going to get a team, however. I have nothing to base this on. Just a hunch.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation

    In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: GTA takes a step forward in being part of the relocation/expansion conversation : That would be pretty crappy for the Jets for sure. I don't think Seattle is going to get a team, however. I have nothing to base this on. Just a hunch.
    Posted by jmwalters[/QUOTE]

    You may be right;  it might be a bit premature for Seattle at this point.  I think the league would like to see a committed ownership group ready to write a cheque, and ground broken on the arena site.  While the NHL committing to Seattle would definitely move the arena along, it was my understanding that an NBA team was the real trigger for construction.

    Too much still up in the air at this point.  For Phoenix, I would say that Quebec is a better bet.  Seattle will have to wait for the next failing franchise.  Hmm.. I wonder if Gaglardi's purchase of the Stars was predicated on this strategy?
     

Share